The “Extremist” Agenda: Opposing Incentives to Abortion

I have to thank Andrea Lafferty, of the Traditional Values
Coalition, for her response
to a piece I wrote opposing
Personhood USA’s efforts to give full constitutional rights to the unborn
from the moment of fertilization.In her commentary she hopes to discredit my organization, National Advocates for Pregnant
Women (NAPW), by exposing our commitment to all pregnant women, including those who love their
children but are unable to overcome a drug problem in the short term of
pregnancy.

Ms. Lafferty argues that NAPW
has an “extremist agenda.” Specifically,
she highlights the fact that NAPW“defends drug-addicted women from prosecutions for endangering their
unborn babies.” Indeed we do, and at
least for one reason we would have thought Ms. Lafferty and her Coalition,
would approve of: because threatening pregnant women with prosecution creates
an incentive for them to have abortions.

Given how hard it
is for most people to overcome an addiction problem quickly (just ask Rush
Limbaugh) as well as the difficulty of obtaining appropriate treatment
(especially for pregnant and parenting women), laws that threaten to punish
women who carry their pregnancies to term in spite of a drug problem place
substantial pressure on them to get unwanted abortions.

In fact, this kind of prosecution in
North Dakota (one of the states where a personhood bill has been
introduced) compelled a pregnant woman to have an abortion. In 1992 Martina
Greywind, who was approximately twelve weeks pregnant, was arrested.She was charged with reckless
endangerment based on the claim that by inhaling paint fumes, she was creating
a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death to a “person” — her
“unborn child.”After her arrest, a
lawyer for the anti-abortion group Lambs of Christ filed a petition seeking to
have the woman’s brother, Ken Greywind, appointed her legal guardian. Mr.
Greywind explained in court papers "I believe she is contemplating an
abortion in order to have the charge of reckless endangerment dismissed.”

Ms. Greywind did obtain an abortion. And indeed, the
prosecutor dropped the charges citing the fact that she had “terminated her
pregnancy.”

We admit it. NAPW opposes laws that create an
incentive for women to terminate otherwise wanted pregnancies. We would hope
that such opposition would provide common ground for NAPW, Ms. Lafferty and her
organization.

We would also hope that we could work together to
spread the good news about these mothers and their children. Ms. Lafferty says
in her comments about NAPW that we defend mothers
who “are addicting their unborn babies and subjecting them to extreme risks of
mental retardation or death.” Ms. Lafferty, like many people, believes
that a pregnant woman who uses any amount of an illegal drug – and crack
cocaine in particular — will inevitably harm her “unborn child.”

For nearly two decades, the popular press was filled
with inaccurate information about the effects of in utero cocaine exposure.
Media hype, however, is not the same as scientific evidence. In 2004 leading researchers
in the field of prenatal exposure to drugs signed an open
letter explaining that these women are not “addicting” their “unborn babies.”
“Addiction” they wrote “is a technical term that refers to compulsive behavior
that continues in spite of adverse consequences. By definition, babies cannot
be ‘addicted’ to crack or anything else.”

Moreover, these experts as well as federal courts and
leading federal government agencies now confirm that “the phenomena of "’crack
babies’ . . . is essentially a myth.” As the National
Institute for Drug Abuse has reported, “Many recall that ‘crack babies,’ or
babies born to mothers who used crack cocaine while pregnant, were at one time
written off by many as a lost generation…It was later found that this was a gross exaggeration.” And,
as the U.S.
Sentencing Commission has concluded, “[t]he negative effects of prenatal
cocaine exposure are significantly less severe than previously believed” and
those negative effects “do not differ from the effects of prenatal exposure to
other drugs, both legal and illegal.” Most recently the New York Times, relying
on actual experts, including the pediatrician featured in this NAPW video, set the record
straight with a story entitled The Epidemic That
Wasn’t.

NAPW knows that there are not two kinds of women –
those who have abortions and those who have babies. Sixty-one percent of women
who have abortions are already mothers, and another 24 percent will go on to
become mothers.Over the course of
their lives, 85 percent of all women bring life into this world. NAPW advocates
for all of them. We don’t expect Ms. Lafferty to join us in our work to ensure
that women have access to safe legal abortion services, but we do hope she will
support our efforts to ensure that women who do want to go to term aren’t
punished for doing so.

When considering punishing women that choose to carry to term for using substances, many factors must be considered. First, one must look at the issue of whether or not the state is offering equal protection under the law. Considering every individual is addicted to something, mothers expose fetuses in utero to many substances. For example, some women eat fish and cannot give up that habit despite the risk of mercury poisoning, or complications from excessive exposure to mercury. Nicotine, a perfectly legal substance, when used by pregnant women is KNOWN to result in low birth weight, a condition that places the infant at an increased risk of problems such as hypoglycemia or sudden infant death syndrome. Still, women guilty of smoking cigarettes during pregnancy are not monitored for child neglect or abuse. One of the most widely acceptable drugs in the United States is caffeine. In fact, current medical evidence suggests that consuming large amounts of caffeine while pregnant increases the risk of still births, low birth weight, preterm deliveries, or spontaneous abortion. Still, I have yet to see the state pursue cases against women guilty of ingesting excessive amounts of caffeine while pregnant! Prescription drugs are often known to cause adverse effects to an infant when taken during pregnancy. Complications that result from the use of prescription drugs during pregnancy include congenital malformations, low birth weight, or neurobehavioral abnormalities. Yet, these drugs are still prescribed to pregnant women and those women are not accused of neglect or abuse! All this considered, it appears the state is using selective enforcement, thereby not offering equal protection under the law.
In addition to not offering equal protection under the law, parenthood laws enable the state to prosecute pregnant women, thereby deterring women from the exact services meant to protect the health of both mother and fetus. In many cases, doctors will refuse to treat women with substance abuse problems or mental health issues, claiming the client is too high risk of a patient. This seems contrary to logic, as one would think a high risk patient needs close monitoring, not shunning from the system meant to offer services. Without access to substance abuse treatment, how are women expected to overcome addictions? It is widely known that addictions are not easily overcome. One may attempt to quit numerous times before being successful, so how can an addicted woman be expected to overcome an addiction in just 9 months, especially without services? Separate from substance abuse issues, parenthood laws also rob women of their rights during the birthing process. For example, many hospitals refuse care to a woman wanting a vaginal birth after a cesarean, unless the woman agrees to a planned cesarean. This robs women of autonomy over their own bodies and their liberty. As a result of hospital policies that do not respect the rights of the mother, many women attempt vaginal births at home; ultimately a much riskier situation than attempting a vaginal birth in a hospital setting. The bottom line is that when women receive handcuffs instead of healthcare, women fear seeking medical help; a fear that creates more negative outcomes than if the system supported women and offered services instead of punishment.

jodi-jacobson

for this excellent, powerful piece.

Jodi

marysia

Lynn,

I oppose both abortion *and* punishing pregnant women with addiction problems. If you want common ground, there you go.

I don’t understand anti-abortion people who want to punish pregnant women for their drug problems. Prolife should mean pro everything that will help pregnant women and their babies both to live and to thrive as much as possible, not only before and after birth. And in this case of addiction, that means a complete public commitment to generously funding and running rehab programs with immediate access.